Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th May 2010 09:54 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 422909
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Good news, although I'm sure scribd will still suck.
I just used the Flash version for the first time, and indeed sucks. But why would the new "Still suck"? Is there something about Scribd I don't know? I didn't know what it was until just now.
More to the point though, what exactly are they doing now that couldn't be done with HTML4? Google's PDF quickview seems to manage fine without HTML5 or flash.
Google's PDF quickview is just that - displaying a PDF in a frame. Scribd's produces an actual web page. That's quite something different.
Edited 2010-05-06 10:06 UTC
Exactly. There is no need to use HTML5 in order to provide documents 'as web pages'. Documents are not applications, HTML5 is about applications mostly.
If only the web browsers supported CSS2.1 we'd have additionally nice printing support (table of contents, splitting into pages, indexes etc). But instead we have this crazy race/buzz regarding HTML5.
Unless they're using html canvas to achieve the layout, then you're probably right: this could be done with html4.1 and a few CSS3 properties (such as css3 text columns http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-multicol/ )
I'm curious to see a page using the non-flash technique...





Member since:
2006-07-25
Good news, although I'm sure scribd will still suck.
More to the point though, what exactly are they doing now that couldn't be done with HTML4? Google's PDF quickview seems to manage fine without HTML5 or flash.